Volatility

December 14, 2017

Cancer Notes

<

 
 
The US cancer-industrial complex has the same ideology as that of government regulators: It’s a combination of direct corporate corruption and the ideology of “managing” a certain level of cancer “risk” and “tolerance”. This adds up to a complete focus on detection and treatment, the latter having to be done on a corporate profiteering basis. (This latter emphasis is also a combination of corruption and ideology.) Studying the environmental causes of cancer and working for prevention (as the World Health Organization’s IARC does*) is ruled out as unscience and unpolicy. This is the cancer branch of the corporate science paradigm. Only alleged genetic causality can be researched, and only gene therapy would constitute acceptable prevention policy. The only place where there’s any controversy within the system is over some aspects of detection, for example mammograms.
 
The few exceptions to this, such as with cigarettes and lung cancer, were forced upon the system by grassroots movements. Acknowledging what the system long knew, that smoking causes cancer in the smoker, didn’t threaten the paradigm as much because it’s easy to place all the blame on the smoker for his own cancer. By contrast, second-hand smoke has been more fraught (and Big Tobacco deniers like Henry Miller are still active to this day) because that’s an environmental cause.
 
This war has a strange religious element. Corporate cancer researchers have explicitly named “bad luck” as a significant cause of cancer. This isn’t a scientific concept but a pathetic attempt to fill the void which even the gross embellishment of the evidence for some genetic causality hasn’t been able to fill. The anti-scientific and pro-cancer goal is to deny the environmental causality at all costs. (The “bad luck” thesis was quickly debunked by a study done according to the classical falsificationist scientific method.)
 
It’s religiously weird, though, in that religious preachers usually want to give people explanations for pressing things which they can’t explain on their own. Today’s corporate scientism tries to do this with the ideology of biological determinism. It’s junk science, but for those willing to believe the lies it could possibly fulfill that religious need. Genetic deterministic theories of cancer would fit in here.
 
So it’s significant that, as committed as corporate science is to finding genetic causes for almost all cancer, it nevertheless has failed so badly even on its own terms that it’s had to resort to such a transparent admission of bankruptcy as enshrining “bad luck” as the state of its science. Of course bad luck doesn’t explain anything to anyone, so it’s not only laughably bad science, but bad religion as well.
 
I’m a real anti-cancer researcher and I get paid nothing. There’s lots of fake cancer researchers who get paid millions.
 
 
*Although the WHO as a whole has been consistently pro-poison, the IARC is out of step with the dominant corporate/reductionist ideological framework, instead emphasizing environmental factors in cancer causation:
 
“Emphasis is placed on elucidating the role of environmental and lifestyle risk factors and studying their interplay with genetic background in population-based studies and appropriate experimental models. This emphasis reflects the understanding that most cancers are, directly or indirectly, linked to environmental factors and thus are preventable.”
 
The proposition that cancer is preventable runs directly counter to the dominant science ideology which views cancer as arising from genetic determinism and/or “bad luck” and the only acceptable response to be massively expensive and interventionist “cures” supervised by Big Drug and other corporate sectors. This is why the corporate scientific establishment, regulators like the EPA and EFSA, and the corporate media all despise the IARC. And this is why Reuters has embarked on a vendetta against the agency.
 
I often ponder the irony that even among “decent” people the great heroic metaphor is “curing cancer”, while someone like me who has dedicated my life to preventing cancer is beyond the pale. That’s because even the good people do demand their worthless expensive destructive junk, and the basic template applies not just to corporate-controlled institutions but to everyone. Even cancer must be dealt with only within the framework which exalts productionism, consumerism, technocracy, corporate rule as normal and normative. Even efforts against cancer must never hinder this imperative. Among the people of the system, its supporters and its tacit followers, there is consensus on this.
 
 
 
 
Advertisements

October 26, 2017

Train in Vain, If That’s Your Only Mode

>

 
 
Reuters continues its Monsanto-instigated campaign of slander against the World Health Organization’s cancer research agency IARC.*
 
1. This study is a lie, as has been proven by the history of herbicides. Even the USDA admitted, even before Roundup Ready crops were commercialized, that these poison plants wouldn’t reduce farming costs but only make it easier to manage greater acreage. Herbicide tolerant GMOs were designed to destroy jobs and accelerate farm consolidation. But the costs never were intended to be lessened, only shifted from labor wages to corporate inputs.
 
2. Even if it did “cost” people more when they’re in the mode of being train passengers to have workers mow and otherwise tend the rail lines, this would then be money those workers would spend as consumers, thereby increasing the velocity of money and rendering the economy more healthy to everyone, including those same “train passengers” insofar as they are also workers, consumers, citizens.
 
This propaganda campaign (the fake “study” and the fake “news article”) is a typical example of media dissemination of corporate austerity ideology, austerity lies. It’s designed to strangle all thought in order to strangle all attempts to free the economy and particularly the food supply from the corporate death grip.
 
But if the train passengers reading it believe the lies and see themselves as living on an island of pure passenger-dom, they’ll find out soon enough that there is no island. Like it or not they’re subject to the forces of the economy far beyond what they pay for train tickets, and in all those ways the bell tolls for them too, not just for people with mowing jobs. Pretty soon they won’t have to worry about the price of a train ticket, since they won’t be able to afford it at any price. That’s what corporate austerity, as propagated by media campaigns like this, has in store for them.
 
 
*Although the WHO as a whole has been consistently pro-poison, the IARC is out of step with the dominant corporate/reductionist ideological framework, instead emphasizing environmental factors in cancer causation:
 

Emphasis is placed on elucidating the role of environmental and lifestyle risk factors and studying their interplay with genetic background in population-based studies and appropriate experimental models. This emphasis reflects the understanding that most cancers are, directly or indirectly, linked to environmental factors and thus are preventable.

 
The proposition that cancer is preventable runs directly counter to the dominant science ideology which views cancer as arising from genetic determinism and/or “bad luck” and the only acceptable response to be massively expensive and interventionist “cures” supervised by Big Drug and other corporate sectors. This ideology is driven by the need of the poison-peddling corporations to obscure and deny the fact that profitable products like glyphosate are in fact major cancer drivers. The corporate flacks are abetted by scientism’s religious zealots who refuse to hear any evil spoken of their technological rabbits’ feet.
 
For example, the fraudulent depiction of oxidative stress as having only “random” effects is typical of corporate science. By contrast, the WHO’s IARC considers oxidative stress to be one of the environmental factors causing cancer and applies this to its assessments of pesticides and other cancer agents. There we see one methodological divide between real science and fake corporate science. This is why the corporate scientific establishment, regulators like the EPA and EFSA, and the corporate media all despise the IARC. And this is why Reuters has embarked upon a vendetta against the agency.
 
I often ponder the irony that even among “decent” people the great heroic metaphor is “curing cancer”, while someone like me who has dedicated my life to preventing cancer is beyond the pale. That’s because even your good people do demand their worthless expensive destructive junk, and the basic template applies not just to corporate-controlled institutions but to everyone. Even cancer must be dealt with only within the framework which exalts productionism, consumerism, technocracy, corporate rule as normal and normative. Even efforts against cancer must never hinder this imperative. Among the people of the system, its supporters and its tacit followers, there is consensus on this.
 
 
 

June 10, 2017

Your EPA in Action

>

 
 
It’s been common knowledge for years that the EPA knew at least since the early 1980s that glyphosate causes cancer, and has been helping Monsanto cover up this fact ever since. Glyphosate doesn’t work in practice, and the brain-dead cult of it is driven only by profit and power.
 
The flood of cancer lawsuits now ongoing against Monsanto is providing more information about the EPA’s pattern of crime. In one of the suits the plaintiffs’ experts are reviewing one of Monsanto’s own original studies which found evidence of glyphosate’s cancerousness.
 
This 1983 study, entitled “A Chronic Feeding Study of Glyphosate (Roundup Technical) in Mice”, was conclusive enough that in 1984 EPA toxicologist William Dykstra wrote in a memo: “glyphosate is oncogenic…in a dose-related manner.” Other EPA scientists concurred over the next year. In 1985 they officially signed a consensus review classifying glyphosate as Category C, “possibly carconogenic to humans.”
 
In response, Monsanto cadre George Levinskas, the company’s cover-up artist who previously led the campaign to lie about the devastation wrought by PCBs, suborned doctor and academic Marvin Kuschner to whitewash the evidence. Levinskas assured colleagues that Kuschner’s testimony was in the bag even before Kuschner actually looked at the slides. Sure enough, Kuschner claimed to find a tumor in the control group which previous researchers, including Monsanto’s own, had not located.
 
At the same time as this alleged control group tumor was being “discovered”, Monsanto sent the EPA a secret report which blamed the tumors found among the experimental group on how the study allegedly used “aged mice”. Why, praytell, would a scientific toxicology study use “aged” experimental subjects such that tumor evidence, if found, would be overdetermined? Precisely for that reason – so that in the event of experimental trouble Monsanto could dismiss the evidence as caused by the age of the subjects. In other words, this is Monsanto openly admitting that its study was a deliberately designed to be a fraud, because they intentionally used experimental subjects which could not provide legitimate scientific evidence. In legitimate science, of course, the goal of experimental design is to isolate the experimental variable(s) and control for every other variable. Legitimate researchers therefore select their experimental subjects in order to prevent any overdetermination of the results. In a cancer study, the subjects would be selected from the demographic which has the least actuarial incidence of cancer. But if you select older mice who are statistically more prone to tumors in general, you’re intentionally designing a fraudulent study. Here we have Monsanto openly avowing that it perpetrated such a fraud, and claiming that therefore the evidence of its own study should be dismissed.
 
Any society which respected science would drive them out with a whip. But we see how things function in a system of establishment science dedicated to the corporate science paradigm.
 
Monsanto also bombarded the EPA with “historical control data”, a standard methodological fraud. Standard in industry tests, this tactic is designed to generate irrelevant noise in order to drown out any toxicity or cancer signal which does arise.
 
 
These Monsanto lies gave the EPA enough of a pretext to reclassify glyphosate into Category D – “not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.” But they still asked Monsanto to repeat the study, which Monsanto refused to do, thus implicitly validating the original results. In other words, Monsanto believed that even with all its chicanery and fraud, a new study would still produce evidence that glyphosate causes cancer. If the company didn’t think that, it would happily perform the study. The same goes for the fact that the GMO corporations have absolutely refused ever to perform a single safety study upon any GMO. This proves that the corporations and governments believe that such studies would produce evidence of the health harms of GMOs.
 
In 1989 the EPA dropped its request for a new study. The EPA was warming up to its whitewashing role. In 1991 the agency finally performed a complete inversion, dubbing glyphosate Category E – “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans” – a bald-faced lie.
 
The EPA has held fast to this pro-glyphosate line ever since, reaffirming it most recently in 2013.
 
Meanwhile the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), one of the few public bodies dedicated to legitimate science*, has deemed this same study, along with a 1981 study finding evidence that glyphosate causes testicular cancer in rats, as evidence that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen”.
 
 
Since at least the early 1980s Monsanto and the EPA have known that glyphosate causes cancer. Every US president, agriculture secretary, and other government officials also have known this at least since then. All of them have systematically covered up this fact ever since. They are all complicit in mass murder by poisoning. This is indelibly what the EPA and other regulatory agencies are, just as it’s indelibly what the Corporate One-Party is, regardless of its fake “Democrat” and “Republican” groups. There is no path forward for humanity with these criminal organizations. The regulatory agencies are dedicated in principle to “managing” the infliction of deadly poisons upon the people, and in principle are supposed to keep the number of deaths and injuries at a politically tolerable level, thus the regulatory concept of “tolerances”. But in practice they make no attempt even to manage the death toll, but strive to maximize the use of every kind of deadly agricultural poison. This is indelibly what they are.
 
There is no path forward for humanity in seeking to “co-exist” with these poisons and poisoners. The only solution is total abolition. Therefore there is no path forward in trying to “reform” these indelibly poisonist agencies. They too must be abolished along with the vile poisons they inflict upon us.
 
 
 
*Although the WHO as a whole has been consistently pro-Monsanto, the IARC is out of step with the dominant corporate/reductionist ideological framework, instead emphasizing environmental factors in cancer causation.
 

Emphasis is placed on elucidating the role of environmental and lifestyle risk factors and studying their interplay with genetic background in population-based studies and appropriate experimental models. This emphasis reflects the understanding that most cancers are, directly or indirectly, linked to environmental factors and thus are preventable.

 
The proposition that cancer is preventable runs directly counter to the dominant “science” ideology which dogmatically views cancer as arising either from genetic determinism or “bad luck”, and which considers the only acceptable response to be massively expensive and interventionist cures supervised by Big Drug and other corporate sectors. This ideology is driven by the need of the poison-peddling corporations to obscure and deny the fact that profitable products like glyphosate are in fact major cancer drivers. The corporate flacks are abetted by scientism’s religious zealots who refuse to hear any evil spoken of their technological rabbits’ feet.
 
 
 
Help propagate the abolitionist idea.
 
 
 
 

June 5, 2017

The Regulator/Corporate Interest vs. the People’s Interest

>

 
 
The Greens/EFA faction of the European Parliament is suing the EFSA because the agency refuses to release secret documents from its 2015 glyphosate review. The EFSA always has proclaimed openly that it depends upon secret documents it is fed by the corporations. In other words, the regulator openly admits that it uses no science in its reviews, but only corporate innuendo. This is in complete contrast to the WHO’s IARC cancer research agency, whose guidelines require it to use only published studies. The IARC requires itself to stay within the bounds of legitimate science, while the EFSA and EPA explicitly disavow science and stay within the bounds of secret corporate decrees.
 
Under public pressure the EFSA did release a fragmentary, heavily redacted version of the corporate materials, and did find collaborators willing to provide political cover for this fraudulent “disclosure”. The EFSA now says no public interest would be served by full disclosure. In addition to being an explicit abdication of the canons of science, which by definition requires public perusal, this is the EFSA’s open admission that it does not view itself as acting in the public interest, since it explicitly avows that the public interest, at best, must be limited by the corporate interest. The Greens/EFA statement partially endorses this, agreeing that there’s a “balance that should be struck.” We abolitionists of course recognize no such fraudulent “balance”, but will never settle for anything less than the full public interest and the full publicity of anything claiming to represent “science”.
 
 
Once again we have the standard state of things:
 
1. The myth of the public interest regulator.
 
2. The reality of the regulator controlled by the corporation and ideologically committed to serving the corporation.
 
3. The regulator lies, claiming to be trying to “strike a balance”. This already partially abrogates the myth of the public interest. In reality, the regulator recognizes no public interest at all, except insofar as this may trickle down from corporate domination.
 
4. “Reformers” have already surrendered that far, and they abet that extent of the lie. So we can assume that over time they’ll continue to surrender ground and abet further lies as the corporate assault advances.
 
 
As the piece points out, the EFSA could, if it really were under legal constraint with regard to publicizing its alleged data, ask the court to order it to publish the data. But of course no regulator would ever make such a request, because they lie about being under such constraint. No regulator ever has its hands tied by intellectual property law. On the contrary, they ardently, actively, ideologically support the poisoner project and all its elements. This includes the “secret science” the regulators require in order to perform their sham reviews.
 
 
As I’ve written many times before, this strong regulator bias on behalf of the corporations and against the public good and against science does not arise primarily from superficial venal corruption. It arises from a far more profound existential corruption, a corruption of all canons of human morality and reason. While de jure corruption is common, it’s epiphenomenal compared to the overall ideological and methodological framework of technocracy and the corporate science paradigm. Cadres of an agency like the EFSA or ECHA, or the US EPA, FDA, and USDA, operate according to the corporate/technocratic template. Its three components are:
 
1. The corporate power/profit project is normative. It is the primary purpose of civilization. Under no circumstance can any other value or alternative project be allowed significantly to hinder the corporate project.
 
This has profound implications for actions like a pesticide cancer review. For technocratic regulators to acknowledge the fact that all synthetic pesticides cause widespread cancer would significantly hinder the corporate project. Therefore even the prospect of such acknowledgement is ruled out a priori. By definition it cannot be part of the review. Only the most grossly excessive and obvious cancerousness on the part of a particular chemical could be acknowledged even in principle. When outfits like the US EPA or the EU’s EFSA claim to believe that glyphosate is not cancerous, this is not according to any rational or scientific canon of evidence, and reformers who interpret it this way make a mistake about the fundamental character of these organizations.
 
Rather, technocratic regulators apply the canon of the corporate paradigm. According to this canon “causes cancer” is defined as: “So grossly carcinogenic that it’s politically impossible to deny it, to the point that lack of action would in itself be significantly bad for business.” For the government, just as much as for the corporation, cancer is purely political.
 
This leads to the template’s second component.
 
2. Given the strictures of (1), the regulator may if absolutely necessary impose limits on the most excessive harms and worst abuses. More often, it only pretends to do even this. Which leads to the template’s third component.
 
3. The regulator then puts its imprimatur on the corporate project as having been sufficiently regulated for safety. According to the ideology of technocracy and bureaucracy, the people are supposed to believe implicitly in the competence, rigor, and honesty of the regulator. They’re supposed to believe this for all measures of safety, public and environmental health, political and socioeconomic benefit and lack of harm.
 
All this is based on a Big Lie, since as we described above the regulator actually functions only according to the normative values of corporate power. But it fraudulently claims, always implicitly and very often explicitly, that it has acted on behalf of human values and to protect and serve the people. Therefore, the ideology goes, the people should repose implicit trust in the regulator rather than assert themselves democratically in any kind of grassroots way. Most of all, the people must not start to think in any political terms which would be based on fundamentally different values and goals, values and goals opposed to those of corporate rule and technocracy.
 
Thus we see how technocracy is an ideology, method, and form of government which is fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-political as such since it is dedicated to the proposition that the people should relinquish all political activity and passively receive and believe the judgements of technocratic regulators. This system is based fundamentally on the Big Lie that it actually is a form of democracy and a form of society which encourages the political participation of the people. But in fact it conjures only sham versions of these and seeks aggressively to discourage and suppress any true politics.
 
This ideology and method is especially critical for the poisoner campaign, whose continued domination depends upon the people’s opposition remaining strait-jacketed within the bonds of regulator-based reformism. It’s essential that no significant number of people attain an abolitionist consciousness and commit to the abolitionist goal.
 
We see how the corporate state and technocracy, along with their allied economic ideology of neoliberalism, exist as species within the same genus as classical fascism. This is the genus of pseudo-democratic forms bled of all real political content which then stand as cultural facades behind which exists only state tyranny. Today’s corporate state is the most fully evolved form of this tyranny.
 
 
 
Help propagate the abolitionist idea.
 
 
 

May 30, 2017

For Educational Use, Portier/EFSA Example

>

People keep out. Corporate Exclusion Zone.

 
 
We continue to compile information about the fraudulence of the European glyphosate reviews. Chris Portier, a cancer expert who has served with the IARC and participated in its 2015 review confirming that glyphosate causes cancer, has analyzed the EFSA’s partial release of the information upon which it based its review, as well as a 2015 paper disseminated by the industry’s Glyphosate Task Force (GTF). He finds that the German Agency for Risk Assessment (BfR, the agency which carries out Germany’s role as the EU’s “rapporteur state” for glyphosate), the EFSA, and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) all distorted their interpretations of the industry’s own glyphosate studies in order to suppress the studies’ evidence that glyphosate causes tumors in rodents. In fact, the EU agencies now follow the BfR in simply regurgitating the GTF’s talking points where it comes to distorting and suppressing the data.
 
Portier details several elements of fraudulent methodology.
 

* EFSA’s classification of the human evidence as “very limited” is not a valid characterization under the relevant EU law (the CLP guidelines) and fails to properly address the strength of the available evidence;
* Both EFSA and ECHA dismissed positive findings because they fell inside of the range of the historical controls (this is an improper use of historical control evidence);
* Both EFSA and ECHA compared findings across different animal strains and different study durations to conclude that studies were inconsistent (this is not scientifically justifiable); and
* Both EFSA and ECHA characterize the evidence for genotoxicity (DNA damage) as negative, yet a review of the evidence released by EFSA and the open scientific literature suggest there are many studies demonstrating genotoxicity.

 
These are typical of the way regulators distort and suppress the science. As is also typical, the regulatory agencies followed the lead of Monsanto’s GTF in deploying these fraudulent methods. The corporation typically is the mentor and teacher of the regulator
 
 
Therefore we have the latest information for the ongoing political struggle to ban glyphosate, as part of the greater imperative to abolish all synthetic pesticides. Here’s the takeaways.
 
1. All the evidence, including that compiled by the industry’s own tests, consistently finds that glyphosate causes cancer.
 
2. This comes through even in the distorted releases of industry and regulators.
 
3. The regulators regard corporate control of science as normal and normative.
 
4. This includes the new paradigm of “secret science”. But according to the canons of scientific method, science by definition is public. Therefore secret science is a contradiction in terms. If it’s not publicized, it’s not part of the scientific record, period.
 
5. The corporate and regulator lust for secrecy proves, among other things, that the real evidence is even worse than they’ve been forced to let out. The existence of secret science in itself is strict proof that the governments and corporations know or believe that to perform and publicize real science would bring results damning to their products, pesticides and GMOs. It proves that whatever evidence they have condemns these poisons.
 
6. Regulators are not public servants but corporate servants. These agencies are indelibly pro-corporate and always serve the corporation, never the people. This is their real job, while propaganda about public service is just a lie.
 
 
We depart from Portier in the prescription, of course. As an establishment scientist he’s committed to endlessly proposing reforms, i.e. begging the criminals to stop committing crimes. We abolitionists, by contrast, take his findings as further proof that these regulatory institutions are indelibly criminal organizations which never can be redeemed, nor their mandate to “manage” poisonism be reformed. On the contrary, the poisons these agencies “regulate” must be abolished. We’ve had enough of these poisons’ agronomic failure and destruction, enough of their health and environmental devastation, and enough of the political sham.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

May 25, 2017

Abolition vs. Regulation

>

 
 
We have the latest detail in the ongoing exposure of the indelible collaboration of the EPA and Monsanto. The EPA provided talking points to the EFSA to help it dismiss as irrelevant a study showing that glyphosate causes cancer in mice. The EFSA could then rule the evidence out of its glyphosate review. An EFSA officer admitted this in a letter to glyphosate critic Peter Clausing, who has been denouncing the EFSA’s sham “regulation” of glyphosate. Thus we see how the EPA and EFSA work together to defend what they see as Our Thing, the poisons propagated by their corporate clients.
 
Just another stone to add to the Everest of proof that the regulators are inherently pro-poison. This particular act, like almost all such acts, was not “corruption”. It was standard, everyday, banal procedure, in accord with the institutional ideology and mandate. The only corruption we can meaningfully speak of is the fact that, relative to all canons of human morality and reason, pro-corporate regulation is existentially corrupt. But as for de jure “corruption”, that’s nothing more than a drop in the ocean.
 
 
As for those who retain faith in the idea of such regulation, it’s bizarre how someone can, day after day, read and comment on pieces, each of whose content boils down to “the EPA is fundamentally pro-pesticide and pro-GMO” or “the FDA is pro-GMO”, and yet simultaneously hold the faith that such regulatory agencies are basically good, sound institutions, there to serve the people, institutions which humanity needs to have. Underlying this is the prior, unspoken assumption that the thing being regulated, such as pesticides and GMOs, also is something basically good, just in need of regulation. Faith in the regulator is a manifestation of wanting to co-exist with Monsanto and its poisons.
 
Abolitionism denies this implicit, primary proposition, renders it explicit, and from there denies the secondary, surface, “political” proposition. Therefore we reject today’s political configuration and call for a new one.
 
We recognize that it’s impossible to “regulate” poisonism, impossible to “manage” it, there can be no “tolerance level” of it, and therefore it’s intrinsically impossible for an institution dedicated to such regulation, management, setting of tolerances, to play any constructive role.
 
We cannot “regulate” agricultural poisons, we need to abolish them completely.
 
 
 
 

April 28, 2017

You Can’t Keep Scamming People Who Don’t Want to Be Scammed

>

Corporations and reformers always come together for what matters most.

 
 
(This is just a short piece. It’s a foretaste of a longer treatment I have in the works dealing with the pathology of hankering for “more and better testing.”)
 
 
We see where the seemingly permanent rut of fetishizing “more data” and “more testing” gets one. After endless begging by people who aren’t capable of understanding what the EFSA’s cover-up means and going from there, the EFSA finally, grudgingly, released a portion of its hitherto “secret science” to a few carefully selected scientist and public advocate recipients. The result, according to Corporate Europe Observatory’s survey of the collaborating scientists:
 
“The data is very difficult to handle and cannot be used for publication, making it impossible for scientists to use.”
 
In other words it’s a scam which has found all too many voluntary collaborators and all too few intelligent and principled denouncers. This was predictable and predicted. Any scientist with integrity would boycott this fake “disclosure” and publicly denounce it as a scam, for the exact reasons detailed in this piece.
 
Here’s a brief description of the EFSA’s “disclosure”: The documents are image PDFs which cannot be machine-searched or used with other software; the documents are grossly redacted, including the summary, methodology and conclusions; the release came with a threat that any recipient who publishes any part of it might be sued by the industry for violating intellectual property law. “So we did not publish it for now…”
 
To correct the headline, this most definitely is not “better than nothing”, it is worse, nor “could [it] in principle allow limited scrutiny on the agency’s glyphosate assessment work, and some insights”. Why anyone would be willing to settle for “limited scrutiny” is beyond me, but at any rate we see how it doesn’t allow even that, but rather scrutiny skewed according to Monsanto’s specifications.
 
But instead of dealing with this as the self-evident fraud it is, the piece and the collaborating scientists treat it as some kind of brain teaser.
 
 
What’s truly disturbing about even the seemingly more honest and socially responsible scientists isn’t just their bottomless political naivete which allows them to be so easily manipulated this way, but the way incidents like this highlight how existentially corrupt even they are. Any true scientist automatically rejects “secret science” as inadmissible by definition and rejects anything short of 100% public disclosure as unacceptable. This is non-negotiable, and no true scientist or public advocate would collaborate in any kind of fraud which flouts this non-negotiable baseline. But here we see yet again how our “reformers” endorse secret science, consider its existence negotiable and acceptable, and merely decry some “excesses”. Many of them see themselves as part of the technocratic elite and merely want to be accepted by the corporate establishment. That’s why they’re willing to serve as specially selected recipients of otherwise still secret information instead of demanding full public release as non-negotiable. To use a metaphor commonly used by political traitors to describe themselves, they merely want “a seat at the table” and nothing more. This is yet another proof of wanting to make a deal to co-exist with Monsanto.
 
I’m not aware of any of the specially selected recipients who rejected the release on the grounds I cite here. Evidently Monsanto selected the recipients well.
 
And to repeat the obvious fact of rationality and political tactics, secret science and covering up the facts is strict automatic proof that whatever evidence the corporations and regulators have is adverse to the product. Therefore the very fact that Monsanto and the EFSA have felt the need to resort to secrecy is proof that they know or suspect glyphosate causes cancer. It’s a clear admission of guilt on their part.
 
The tactical implications are obvious for anyone who’s really serious about abolishing these poisons and not just blowing smoke. We relentlessly denounce the system for its secrecy and, as I just did here, emphasize how secret science in itself is proof of the harmfulness of the product. As a matter of course we demand complete publication and a complete end to the cover-up. But since we know from history that any concession from the regulator and/or corporation will be fraudulent, we pre-emptively reject, on principle, anything short of full, 100% uncensored public disclosure, and we refuse any cooperation with any such scam. On the contrary, we redouble the condemnation. The EFSA’s fake disclosure only proves further that whatever they’re hiding damns glyphosate.
 
To restate the basic fact: We have far more than enough evidence which rationally proves that glyphosate causes cancer. By the strict proof of the system’s cover-ups and secret science and systematic refusal to conduct legitimate safety studies we also have proof that governments and corporations know or believe that glyphosate causes cancer. We don’t need more evidence, we need much better and more relentless, disciplined, cumulative communication of the evidence we do have.
 
This is also true of all other pesticides, all of which are cancer agents. And it’s true of glyphosate’s many other health ravages. And it’s true of GMOs. In these cases as well, the rote call for “more testing”, “better testing”, is at best procrastination on the part of those who have no idea what to do. In many cases it’s worse than this, intentional delaying and gate-keeping tactics.
 
 
 
The only thing the EFSA’s fake disclosure accomplished was to provide yet another lesson in how lukewarm most critics of poisonism still are. The EFSA hopes it’ll also allay some of the weaker-minded criticism and reassure the public. Those who collaborate are trying to assist the EFSA and Monsanto in this.
 
I’ll close with the observation that this isn’t just about the abolition struggle. Anyone who cares about the integrity of science itself must regard the campaign of secret science as an abhorrent scourge. Here too one must be an abolitionist. At the very least, one must never be weak, wavering, willing to compromise and collaborate on such a fundamental point. This point on secret science is so fundamental that anyone who would compromise here certainly would compromise anywhere and has no firm principle at all. It’s clear, on both practical and principled grounds, that the one and only valid position on “secret science” is total rejection and refusal to countenance anything short of 100% public transparency.
 
Have I been too severe in this piece? Well, we’ll see if anyone learns a lesson from the incident and publicly expresses that lesson. But if they persist on their “more and better testing” co-existence course, we already know the truth. Persistence Proves Intent, always.
 
 
 
 

April 11, 2017

Free Your Mind. Let the EPA Go, and Good Riddance.

>

 
 
Free your mind, if it needs freeing, from stale faith in the regulatory ideology.
 
At best (and I stress, only at best; most positions are worse) to still repose faith in the regulatory model like that incarnated in the EPA assumes the primacy of corporate rule and corporate poisonism, and indeed the continued dominance of productionism and consumptionism. This faith merely still clings to the fantasy that there can be meaningful “management” of such things as cancer agents, according to technocratic “risk-benefit” equations and other numerological “assessments”, and that certain “tolerance” levels for cancer, birth defects, etc. can be established, along with a certain baseline for how much of the overall ecology can be sacrificed and destroyed.
 
But in reality the ecology is one irreducible whole, and you can’t sacrifice any significant part of it without severely harming the whole. And this is emblematic of the pathology of the whole EPA-type mindset, that in all these ways humanity and the Earth can “co-exist” (to use the biotech sector’s preferred term) with corporate psychopathy. The EPA of course is a capitalist organization and was designed to augment capitalist action, never to hinder it. So faith in the EPA is identical to faith in the essential goodness of corporate rule. It’s a transmuted form of this faith, but it remains the same faith.
 
Of course we’re not talking about anything hypothetical here. The EPA has compiled a history of nearly fifty years, while the paradigm of “regulation” it represents goes back much further. Those who know the history (E. Vallianatos’ Poison Spring is a good place to start) know why the EPA was established in the first place (under duress and largely for political misdirection purposes), how it was originally staffed (largely by ex-USDA cadres bringing the desired pro-corporate ideology, lest the few “idealists” get the wrong idea), how it commenced action (helping to cover up PCB and dioxin pollution and running political interference on behalf of the polluters), and how throughout its subsequent history it has consistently done all it can to assist the corporate poisoners, cover up the evidence of corporate atrocities, and discourage grassroots political action among the people. That’s the EPA’s record.
 
But the pro-regulation cultists remain willfully ignorant of this history, just like every kind of fundamentalist dodges knowledge of every kind of history – because the history always disproves their faith. Same as how cultists of electoralism evidently intend to keep reprising forever the role of a circus geek knocked back and forth by Republicans and Democrats. Indeed, all the Pavlovian dogs drooling to the “Save the EPA!” bell today (the same EPA which spent the previous eight years, and nearly thirty years prior to that, denying that glyphosate causes cancer, just to pick one of its crimes) are simply acting as the mindless geeks the corporate system assumes they are. This is a fine example of how the voters voted unanimously for Trump. This means they voted unanimously for the deranged system of which Trump is the logical product.
 
Just as corporate capitalism itself is proven by history to be a purely wasteful and destructive paradigm, so the “regulation” of capitalism has also proven false. It can’t be part of any constructive way forward, and continued faith in it can only be reactionary. Where it comes to corporate poisons the truth is beyond all doubt – they are unnecessary, are politically and economically destructive, and are purely destructive of human and ecological health.
 
These two truths combine to prove that the necessary position toward poisonism, the only rational and sane position, is total abolitionism.
 
Self-evidently, abolition cannot co-exist with any mindset that a little bit of corporate poison, for whatever tendentious definition of “a little”, can be “regulated”.
 
 
 
 
Help propagate the new and necessary ideas.
 
 
 

March 25, 2017

The Numerology and Emotion of Environmental Cancer Denial: “Bad Luck” is In, Genetic Determinism Out

Filed under: Mainstream Media, Scientism/Technocracy — Tags: , — Russ @ 12:26 pm

>

 
 
 
The hypocrites are at it again. Today the mainstream media is touting with great fanfare a new review claiming to have pinpointed the alleged “bad luck” incidence of cancer at 66%, relegating genetic determinism to a lowly 5% and allowing the rest to environmental factors.
 
These goofy pseudo-precise numbers are one half of what’s really a confused public relations presentation on the part of the science establishment and the corporate media. For them science is a mish-mash of emotive communications and the numerology of hyper-precise figures, which is what we have here. As usual, the mainstream media follows the lead of the scientists.
 
This is not actually a new study, but rather the kind of analysis of existing data which pro-corporate scientists disparage when it produces results they don’t like. In this case, it’s a review of a review. The original review in 2015 used statistical rigmarole to claim that most cancers are the purely random result of mutations during cell division and have no other cause. (The same scientists and fanboys who like this notion then turn around and deny that the very high incidence of mutations during any normal genetic engineering procedure is any kind of problem.) But to the discomfort of the researchers, this claim was widely disliked among the public at large. So they took the original back into the shop, made some cosmetic changes, and now have rolled it out with a new coat of paint.
 
The problem, as the researchers and their supporters are emphasizing today in the media, is that the first study allegedly was misunderstood. By this they mean they flubbed the propaganda presentation. So they needed a do-over. Here’s the opening words of a Science commentary published in tandem with the revamped paper:
 

It is a human trait to search for explanations for catastrophic events and rule out mere “chance” or “bad luck.” When it comes to human cancer, the issue of natural causes versus bad luck was raised by Tomasetti and Vogelstein about 2 years ago. Their study, which was widely misinterpreted as saying that most cancers are due neither to genetic inheritance nor environmental factors but simply bad luck, sparked controversy.

 
The fact is that throughout this entire presentation, starting with the 2015 original model and continuing today with the remake, the scientists have been unable to avoid talking in philosophical and political terms. This is inherent to the “bad luck” thesis as such, and to all cancer science which seeks to obfuscate cancer’s true environmental causation.
 
Contrary to the quote above, there was no “misinterpretation”, nor do media popularizers dumb down or sex up the allegedly complex, nuanced things the scientists are saying. The fact is no one propagates the cult of any group of “experts” more relentlessly than the experts themselves. The mainstream media just follows the experts’ lead. As it must, since the media receives all its propaganda themes from the experts themselves. The most inveterate and reckless popularizers are always the experts themselves.
 
This time they’ll try to do a better job of coaching the media: “While Tomasetti and Vogelstein’s first paper led to no less than a few hundred papers written in response, their new study appears to be more soothing to the nerves.” That’s what CNN sees in its crystal ball, which reflects back the researchers’ hopes for this time around.
 
The piece goes on to quote a scientist ally of the research:
 

“I was concerned about the last article, because it didn’t talk enough about prevention and it left people thinking, ‘Gee you’re just destined to get cancer and you can’t do anything about it,'” said Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. Brawley, who was not involved in the research said he was “much happier” with the current paper, even if it “doesn’t tell me anything I hadn’t known for the last 20 years.”

“Bert Vogelstein is an incredibly well-respected, well-known cancer biologist who published a paper very similar to this — you might even call it part one of this paper — two years ago,” said Brawley, explaining the original paper caused “quite a stir” because it implied that “almost all cancers were not preventable.”

“And it really upset the anti-smoking people, it upset the folks who are in the nutrition and physical activity for cancer prevention — he really upset the prevention crowd,” said Brawley, who believes the new paper is generally a better explanation of the original theory.

 
This sums up the problem with the original roll-out and is characteristic of the refurbished marketing. Now everyone’s on message in terms of adding politically correct disclaimers about how “lifestyle still matters”, even though they’re really claiming it doesn’t. Meanwhile in their disclaimers they’re focusing completely on mostly voluntary factors like smoking and sun exposure while eliding involuntary exposures like pesticides.
 
So the orchestration they’re attempting is to put over their formal “bad luck” statistical artifice (Brawley himself in the CNN piece calls it a “mathematical simulation”) while informally contradicting themselves by paying lip service in the media to some environmental factors while saying nothing about others. In this way they hope to do a better job of carrying out their mandate under the corporate science paradigm.
 
 
Establishment cancer research has long had the mandate to find that cancer is caused predominantly by non-environmental factors. This is necessary for the continuation of the corporate project, since if the people fully understood how corporate poisons were causing the modern cancer pandemic this might rouse them to overthrow corporate rule and even capitalism itself.
 
So the basic mission and problem is to suppress the theory and evidence of environmental causality. For a long time corporate normative scientists preferred genetic determinism as their go-to alleged primary cause of cancer. This is part of their general ideological commitment to biological determinism. (This in turn is an epigone of 19th century mechanism in physics; this biological version of the disproven physics was itself already disproven early in the 20th century but remains the mainstream scientific standard to this day.)
 
But the genetic theory has been so thoroughly debunked that even the mainstream is looking for an alternative. One candidate has been the “bad luck” theory, that cancer is caused by allegedly “random” mutation.
 
 
The first Tomasetti/Vogelstein paper itself was debunked scientifically. This subsequent study analyzing the original found that intrinsic factors can account for only as much as 10-30% of the incidence of cancer, while as much as 90% of cancers are caused by such extrinsic factors as industrial and agricultural poisons.
 
Little by little the environmental causation paradigm favored by the World Health Organization’s IARC and other bodies is gaining ground, as the evidence becomes more and more difficult for corporate establishment medicine and science to deny. But as we see in the media today, they’re doing their best to trump up whatever they can in the corporate defense. “Bad luck” is the theme du jour.
 
The trouble is that they also need to kowtow to both popular prejudice about how people “deserve” what they get, and they need to reckon with simple rationality whose default is that effects have causes. Science, of course, depends completely on the premise of causality. This has put the pro-corporate researchers in a predicament, and therefore they’re trying to say two different, inconsistent things at the same time: Cancer mostly is caused at random, and yet it also has tangible causes, and at any rate can have tangible solutions.
 
This has some grotesque results. For example, the paper defines free radical causation as “random”, and the researchers suggest that “special antioxidants” may someday help prevent this.
 

There are four ways that cells randomly mutate during cell division. One of them, called reactive oxygen species or “free radicals” could theoretically be reduced by exposing cells to special antioxidants. Vogelstein says a better understanding of these mutations could open up areas of research to develop these kinds of antioxidant preventative therapies.

 
In reality much of the incidence of free radicals in the body is caused by environmental factors such as smoking, fried foods, exposure to pesticides such as glyphosate or excessive unconverted beta carotene in the diet, such as likely would occur in most diets with a large proportion of “golden rice”.
 
This fraudulent depiction of oxidative stress as “random” is typical of corporate science. By contrast, the WHO’s IARC considers oxidative stress as one of the environmental factors causing cancer and applies this to its assessments of pesticides and other cancer agents. There we see one methodological divide between real science and fake corporate science, and an example of why the corporate scientific establishment despises the IARC.
 
(The bit about special therapies is standard by now: Existing low-tech, low-maintenance solutions which are known to work are simply ignored, while only high-maintenance, highly expensive, low-performing technological “silver bullets” are touted as possible “solutions”*.)
 
 
As for the numbers, we see the typical absurdity, the intellectual cul de sac of the corporate science establishment. 66%! Not 65, not 67, 66, get that number of angels dancing on the head of a pin right! All they did was play with numbers, but such research reifies numbers to the point that the researchers think they can arrive at a “real”, precise number, rather than a range like “probably 60-70%.” We see how establishment science indulges in the same mystification of fictive numbers as the entire system under Mammon, which reifies such fictions as GDP, GNP, stock prices, housing prices, corporate profit, money as such, as if those things are real. We see how today’s scientism cult is a branch of the Mammon religion.
 
(The 5% number for genetically determined cancer is probably in the ballpark, and the paper’s relative accuracy here may evince the researchers’ competitiveness vis fellow corporate normative teams who want to defend the genetic ideology. As for the pseudo-scientific precision of “66%”, it’s appropriate to the methodology of this study, which is nothing more than typical statistical manipulation helped along by fraudulently defined experimental and control groups.)
 
So far most skeptics are still mired in this same numerological paradigm. They understand that the corporate numbers are fake, but they still have faith that the “real” precision number does exist somewhere out there. Most haven’t yet reached the consciousness that the numerology presupposition is wrong in the first place. Science can identify only ranges of probability, not precise pinhead counts.
 
 
As for “bad luck”, like I corrected the quote above, this is not misunderstood by anyone. On the contrary, the only misunderstanding would be actually to believe in the alleged “randomness” of all these mutations, such that it would follow that the more cell divisions, the more cancer one would expect in a straight, two-variable manner. That’s the contention of this line of argument.
 
But the fact is they have done nothing to delineate true experimental and control groups, and they have literally zero idea how much environmental influence there is on these allegedly “random” mutations. They themselves admit that in cases such as smoking the influence can be quantified. But this is only a most glaring example, and one where they’ve largely surrendered the political fight on behalf of the corporate honor, especially since capitalism has largely been successful in pegging lung cancer from smoking as an individual recklessness rather than the result of systematic corporate marketing and government subsidies.
 
Reason teaches us that the same causality exists for all the influences, especially industrial and agricultural poisons like pesticides, the defense and justification of which currently is a core campaign of the scientific establishment.
 
This kind of research has done nothing to delineate true experimental and control groups. To do that an experiment would have to remove all groups from the environment as such. Indeed, when pressed pro-poison activists often throw up their hands and admit it’s impossible to perform an experiment without all the groups being subject to the corrupted environment, and therefore it’s impossible to perform truly rigorous science. It’s the same as when they claim, as they regularly do, that it’s impossible to recruit technically competent personnel for regulatory panels and such who don’t also work for industry. In both cases their contention is that we the people should therefore give up, surrender all hope of legitimate study or oversight, and submit to the most authoritarian extremes of simply believing and doing what we’re told.
 
It’s true that we the people must relinquish false belief in the corporate regulatory and science establishment. But the answer isn’t to surrender to their false authority. Quite the contrary. We must demolish and abolish completely the authority of those who help to force cancer upon us, as part of abolishing the cancer poisons themselves.
 
 
 
 
*Consider these axioms of today’s scientific establishment, the “normal science” it consistently sets out to “prove”:
 
“Profitable products cannot be toxic or harmful to human health. Only things available freely from nature and labor are toxic.”
 
“High maintenance, high energy consuming, highly expensive procedures work better than low maintenance, low energy, inexpensive solutions.”
 
“The right solution to any problem is to escalate the status quo.”
 
Are any of these rationally plausible? They are not. Quite the contrary, as we know from how evolution works. But as is made abundantly clear on a daily basis, today’s scientists, engineers, their media flacks, and their fanboys all are evolution deniers.
 
 
 
Help propagate the new and necessary ideas.
 
 
 
 

March 24, 2017

All of Today’s Establishment Science is Ghost Written

>

And sustain your business’s “science” that way.

 
 
Last week we contemplated the revelations coming out the Monsanto cancer litigation. Monsanto has been forced by the court to divulge much hitherto secret information about its propaganda machine and how it has sought to cover up the facts about glyphosate’s cancerousness. The new information especially reinforces our longstanding knowledge of the real character of regulators like the EPA. Such regulatory agencies are indelibly pro-corporate and can never serve the people the way the good civics textbooks claim. They were designed to do the opposite, to assist corporate organized crime in looting and poisoning the people and destroying the environment.
 
Among the new proofs of what we already knew are the Monsanto e-mails crowing about their practice of getting academic scientists to put their names on papers written by Monsanto PR flacks. They call it “ghost writing”. Monsanto cadres discussed several specific examples including a pathologist at New York Medical College. Embarrassed that one of its prostitutes has been caught in the act, NYMC is scrambling to cover its tracks and promises to investigate the good doctor. Of course the kind of organization which doesn’t let it be known implicitly that such corruption is acceptable wouldn’t be the one caught sheltering it.
 
 
This is just de jure corruption, the more superficial kind. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
 
What’s vastly greater and more profound is the inertia of the scientific establishment as such, which works predominantly to reinforce prevailing “scientific” dogmas. This is what Thomas Kuhn called “normal science”. These dogmas in turn are dictated by the elite power interests of a society. Under corporate rule, Western society exalts the corporate science paradigm.
 
Therefore, in a broader, deeper sense Monsanto and its fellow oligopoly corporations “ghost write” the entire establishment agenda for toxicological and cancer research, and the paradigm of “science” deployed by regulators. Even mavericks like Seralini tend to define themselves as reformers within this corporate normative framework.
 
But history proves that nothing short of scientific and social revolution can overthrow such entrenched, sclerotic, malign frameworks.
 
 
For a compendium of the fraudulent “science” of glyphosate deployed in publications written by industry and used as religious gospel by regulators, see the new report “Buying Science”.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Older Posts »